Forecast is for more snow in polar regions, less for the rest of us

A new cli­mate model pre­dicts declines in snow­fall in the US over the next 70 years. Credit: NOAA Geo­phys­i­cal Fluid Dynam­ics Lab­o­ra­tory

A new climate model predicts an increase in snowfall for the Earth's polar regions and highest altitudes, but an overall drop in snowfall for the globe, as carbon dioxide levels rise over the next century.

The decline in snowfall could spell trouble for regions such as the western United States that rely on snowmelt as a source of fresh water.

The projections are the result of a new climate model developed at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and analyzed by scientists at GFDL and Princeton University. The study was published in the Journal of Climate.

The model indicates that the majority of the planet would experience less snowfall as a result of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Observations show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has already increased by 40 percent from values in the mid-19th century, and, given projected trends, could exceed twice those values later this century. In North America, the greatest reductions in snowfall will occur along the northeast coast, in the mountainous west, and in the Pacific Northwest. Coastal regions from Virginia to Maine, as well as coastal Oregon and Washington, will get less than half the amount of snow currently received.

In very cold regions of the globe, however, snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture, leading to increased precipitation in the form of snow. The researchers found that regions in and around the Arctic and Antarctica will get more snow than they now receive.

The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles. This finding clashes with other models which predicted declines in snowfall for these high-altitude regions. However, the new model's prediction is consistent with current snowfall observations in these regions.

The model is an improvement over previous models in that it utilizes greater detail about the world's topography – the mountains, valleys and other features. This new "high-resolution" model is analogous to having a high-definition model of the planet's climate instead of a blurred picture.

(Phys.org)—NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter data have given scientists the clearest evidence yet of carbon-dioxide snowfalls on Mars. This reveals the only known example of carbon-dioxide snow falling anywhere in our ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- A late October snowstorm from a Nor'easter blanketed the eastern U.S. from West Virginia to Maine and broke records the weekend before Halloween Monday. NASA's Aqua satellite flew over the region on October ...

Increased snowfall in Antarctica could offset the future impact of global warming on the continent, according to research carried out by a French team comprising researchers from the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique ...

Recommended for you

Using a new type of dual polymer material capable of responding dynamically to its environment, Brown University researchers have developed a set of modular hydrogel components that could be useful in a variety of "soft robotic" ...

When more women are involved in group decisions about land management, the group conserves more—particularly when offered financial incentives to do so, according to a new University of Colorado Boulder study published ...

A new study by UAlberta biologists shows the first evidence of apoptosis, or programmed cell death in algae. The outcomes have broad-reaching implications, from the development of targeted antibiotics to the production of ...

New photonic tools for medical imaging can be used to understand the nonlinear behavior of laser light in human blood for theranostic applications. When light enters biological fluids it is quickly scattered, however, some ...

One of the ocean's little known carnivores has been allocated a new place in the evolutionary tree of life after scientists discovered its unmistakable resemblance with other sea-floor dwelling creatures.

In research that casts cells as curators of their own history, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists have discovered that adult tissues retain a memory, inscribed on their DNA, of the embryonic cells from which they arose. ...

This model is opposite of the ones Al Gore used. Rats Global Warming, I mean Man Made Climate Change, is changing these models faster than the weather is changing outside. So when it gets either warmer, colder, wetter, dryer, ocean levels go up, ocean levels go down, NO matter what the sun does (ie. gets dimmer or brighter, less active or more active), the climate here on Earth (but not the rest of the planents) is changed by humans.

Given that certain people have said that it is stupid for "deniers" to claim there has been a 16 year pause in planetary warming and it's proof that they are scientifically illiterate...

does this mean that it's stupid and proof of scientific illiteracy for IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri to claim that there has been a 17 year pause in warming (but claiming it is meaningless until it keeps up for 30 or 40 years)?http://www.theaus...83112134

Snow is a more or less seasonal form of precipitation, and to say that more snow in certain areas during the winter months, along with less snow in other areas during the winter months is somehow contrary to the concept/process of AGW effects is ludicrous, and displays a supreme lack of understanding of the global climate system.

Furthermore, this in no way refutes the predictions of snowfall pattern changes due to warming --it is a refinement of that prediction.

And it shouldn't even need pointing out that increased snowfall in any given area or areas does Not equate to persistence in that area as ice --generally, it just indicates for increased meltwatyer runoff in the warmer months, much as the Pacific Northwest has experienced in recent years.

@be4r,It isn't explicitly stated, but can probably be safely assumed, that the amount of increase will be offset by the amount of decrease. Maybe try accessing the publication for more detailed information.

The warming in your graph is in no way unprecedented or alarming. These warm periods happen roughly every 900 years and this one is right on cue. Overwhelming evidence suggests the Minoan, Roman,Medieval warm periods and The Holocene Climate optimum where all global and warmer than the present period so there is no cause for alarm. http://hockeyscht...ive.html

"Radio active waste is the real problem. Certain flora etc can help by absorbing CO2 but everything dies when exposed to radiation!"

That is fine. Keep believing that this "waste" is a horrible problem. Give it all to me and I will generate enough power to replace coal and natural gas while the "waste" is exhausted in LFTRs. I will happily accept 1/2 of the lowest bid for companies willing to store and secure this "waste". http://en.wikiped..._reactor

The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

NP: I am sure you are just trolling by spouting lies you know are wrong, but just in case there is a single brain cell in that empty knoggen, let me go over this one more time.

You say: "The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow."

Try to understand this sequence. 1) Warm air holds more water vapor. 2) Under the right conditions the air changes temperature and deposits the water in the form of rain or snow. 3) With more moisture in the air more rain and snow fall - but only under conditions that cause the air to lose the moisture. So, areas that are ripe for snow get more. Areas that are ripe for rain get more. Areas where the weather does not cause rain or snow have less precipitation resulting in drought. Does any of that make it more clear to you how changing weather paterns occur?

The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

Good lord, how can you straight out present such a clearly dishonest misrepresentation of what has been said and not expect people to call you out on it?

The IPCC report from 1990 says clearly that the amount of water in a warmer air mass will INCREASE leading to lessoning numbers of storms each of which will produce more extreme AMOUNTS of snow.

@DirI suggest you apply Ockam"s razor"Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence."http://hockeyscht...ive.htmlSo what caused the warming? The same thing that caused it to stop 17 years ago. Natural variation.

A simple experiment (high school physics) build three plastic covered boxes fill one with normal air (pre-industrial age quantities CO2) and one with an extra percentage of CO2 (comparable to what we have added to the atmosphere) and a third with quantities we project to occur in the next 50 years. Put a thermometer in each. Measure the boxes temperature every five minutes for 8 hours. Which has the highest temperature curve? I challenge all climate nay sayers to try this experiment and be honest about the results! In fact come spring time I think I will run this experiment for you and post the results on youtube! http://rawcell.co...capture/ . Anyone care to wager a bet? 500 bucks on the 50 year CO2 mark! Maybe even build a second and third set with methane quantities added(with and without CO2). Or is this not scientific enough perhaps we need to add a complete eco environment to each box. Perhaps scale this up to the size of football fields?

I've been saying it. Since the reversal of the thermosphere collapse in mid 2009, it's been driving the AO more negative which is what cools the arctic and accumulates ice. It's finally taking hold by sucking up the water it lost and driving cold air down on the arctic, then down the middle latitudes thus cooling and dumping snow.

Over the last 40-50 years, the collapsing thermosphere has been dumping water from the atmosphere (1/8 of the ses level rise) and warming the poles by driving the AO more positive thus sending warm air north.

The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

What a bunch of dishonest retards.

The dishonesty is yours, in continuing to quote things out of context by ignoring the phrases that do not support your desired conclusions.

You have gone from being simply stupid to being egregiously puerile.

Go play with your rattles and teething toys until you've become a mature adult.

I suggest that you refrain from playing with razors until you become mature enough to filly understand the risks involved, the present lack of which is amply evidenced by your continued want of rationality here.

About 3 inches of snow at my house (elevation 1200ft). Still over an inch left in morning. Everything that happens they tie to global warming it is rediculous! Drought = AGW, Flood = AGW, Hurricane = AGW, Freaking blizzard in the middle of the damn desert = AGW! Bit by a dog = AGW.

No matter what happens someone can always say "so and so predicted this" and provide a link. When you persistantly have someone "predicting" all possible outcomes it stands to reason 1 of them will be right.

Want to impress me build a model that comes close to predicting the weather of the past. Then I might put some stock in your premonitions of the future.

Better yet lets talk about a real issue with CO2 like ocean acidification

The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

What a bunch of dishonest retards.

LOL. Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming, reduced precipitation, and desertification? Weren't they all lamenting the lack of snow?

So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!

Pinning down AGW "science" is like trying to hold onto a greased pig. LOL.

The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.

What a bunch of dishonest retards.

LOL. Weren't we pointing this out a few months back when they were all claiming the warm dry winter/spring/summer of 2012 in North America was proof of global warming, reduced precipitation, and desertification? Weren't they all lamenting the lack of snow?

So where are these whiners now? They're back to complaining global warming is causing too much snow!

Pinning down AGW "science" is like trying to hold onto a greased pig. LOL.

Still being the puerile idiot, I see.

To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics. Since you continue to have difficulty grasping that, presumably you've yet to graduate from kindergarten.

I meant ... that [I] hadn't looked at the various stats and conclusions made by the 'professionals' to form a real opinion.But one thing is clear; The situation is NOT clear. I get the feeling that it rather depends on the sponsor of certain parts of research who publish only those findings that suits them. Hence some say one thing and others say something else. All living creatures have an impact on the planet and I would imagine the gigantic Dino-herbivores contributed much CO2 from both ends (comparison to what some say about us and our livestock). I am just not convinced that we alone are the problem, there are just too many variables. Even Astro varaibles could contribute; the position of the Sun and solar system in the our galaxy might enhance some reactions but impede others. In the end we don't understand enough how the climate works and what effect the variables have over a long period of time.

This paper assumes that CO2 drives warming when it has been clearly demonstrated that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise. http://hockeyscht...ade.html

So you've cited the one paper that comes anywhere near to "clearly demonstrate" that temp leads CO2. A paper that is seriously flawed due to bad statistics ( the authors are not climate scientists BTW ). For none denialist types ( because of course you don't want to change your world-view ) try looking here ..http://www.realcl...nfusion/

"snowfall will rise because as air warms it can hold more moisture"Thats why Florida gets so much snow.

The usual expected stupid remark from NP

The stupidity came from claiming warm air produces more snow. The AGW cult has been claiming for decades that warming causes less snow. Now that snow is back with a vengeance, they lie and claim warm air results in more snow.What a bunch of dishonest retards.

Parky - Yet again you demonstrate your spectacular ignorance of science and knee-jerk defaulting to prejudice. It does not say warm air will produce more snow - it says warmer air. That the basic physical process of air at Zero C holding more snow than air at -10C eludes you boggles my mind. That you deem yourself qualified to pontificate on here - a scientific forum populated ( thankfully ) largely by scientifically educated people, even more so. Have you ever met people who's self regard is inversely proportional to their intelligence? If the cap fits

And thousands of papers that point to it being most likely that warming is being caused by man-made CO2.

You want a 100% consensus do you? In an area emerging science bar the basic centuries old known scientific principles of the behaviours of gases and planetary movement?Even the jury principle allows for majority verdicts - and we're talking some major consequences if ignored here. But of course you don't except that either, do you?

NP you only got half right. The scary part of the problem is that some of these warmists are among the brightest and most educated people in the world. The have banded together and are using their knowledge to promote a political agenda. As a group they are getting huge amounts of government monies to do so. The progressive one world government establishment has a huge war chest which they are using to try to bankrupt all of us and to make us dependent enough to give up our freedoms.

..Since the reversal of the thermosphere collapse in mid 2009, it's been driving the AO more negative which is what cools the arctic and accumulates ice. It's finally taking hold by sucking up the water it lost and driving cold air down on the arctic, then down the middle latitudes thus cooling and dumping snow. Over the last 40-50 years, the collapsing thermosphere has been dumping water from the atmosphere (1/8 of the ses level rise) and warming the poles by driving the AO more positive thus sending warm air north.

I'm sorry this makes no sense and is contradictory. A negative AO ( in winter ) does not cool the Arctic. By definition it is higher pressure which expels cold air to more southern latitudes. You don't get something for nothing, so the Arctic will become warmer ( though still well below zero ). The Thermosphere has no moisture and cannot "drive cold air down on the arctic,". Descending air warms. Look up the gas laws.

I love AGW "science," especially the "predictive" (NOT) models. Where else can you be so phenomenally wrong, and still keep your job? LOL.

"So why is it, Antarctica (the coldest place on earth) is also the largest desert on earth?"It will still be the largest desert on Earth, just not quite so.

"Where else can you be so phenomenally wrong, and still keep your job?" In any field where a forecast is the principle endeavour - then there will be failures. Sensible people realise this and way up the probabilities.

To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics.

That's a nice theory, but can you prove it with statistics? Has global weather volatility significantly increased? And, if so, what proof is there it's caused by temperature increases, over natural variability?

And why have AGW proponents even switched to this argument over their earlier arguments for steadily decreasing precipitation, increasing drought, and desertification? Is it simply that the weather hasn't cooperated?

And here's an interesting point. Why is it the most extreme climate regions on earth (high peaks) have not been warming at all? The highest temperatures ever recorded on any of them are from the 1970's. Most records are much older:

Why is it the most extreme climate regions on earth (high peaks) have not been warming at all? The highest temperatures ever recorded on any of them are from the 1970's. Most records are much older:http://en.wikiped...ontinent

Maximum temps do not tell the whole story. You have to tie them to minima as well. ie to gain an average you add max to min and divide by 2. This paper provides evidence of the raising of minima over highest ground...http://dvfu.ru/me...5993.pdf

"In this paper we find evidence for appreciable differences in mean temperature changes with elevation during the last several decades of instrumental records. The signal appears to be moreclosely related to increases in daily minimum temperature than changes in the daily maximum. The changes in surface temperature vary spatially, with Europe, and parts of Asia displaying the strongest high altitude warming"

To repeat, increasing the thermal energy in any system increases its volatility. That's ELEMENTARY Physics.

That's a nice theory, but can you prove it with statistics? Has global weather volatility significantly increased? And, if so, what proof is there it's caused by temperature increases, over natural variability?

Asked and answered ad nauseum. Needlessly repeating the question is itself an act of puerility.

deepsand...Oh, So I have to believe what Papers say and commit argumentum ad poplulum? I am not shifting the burden of proof but you are. Try reading a bit more Aristotle and Sorites then you might get your comments right.

NP you only got half right. The scary part of the problem is that some of these warmists are among the brightest and most educated people in the world. The have banded together and are using their knowledge to promote a political agenda. As a group they are getting huge amounts of government monies to do so. The progressive one world government establishment has a huge war chest which they are using to try to bankrupt all of us and to make us dependent enough to give up our freedoms.

How very novel, accusing those who stand against you of employing the very policy strategy and tactics that you do. :rolleyes:

Not Parker is not a person, THEY are employees of a PR firm paid to spew BS on behalf of certain billionaires who have an extreme vested interest in an anti-science agenda and they are actually working under several different names on this and other science and news websites. You'll find the exact same wording of their initial asinine comments, under different names, on dozens upon dozens of news sites around the web.

Every so often this gets exposed and that particular moniker gets kicked off the sites and just shifts to a new name.

Thus, not stupid nor ignorant, deceitful is the probably the best term.

Not Parker is not a person, THEY are employees of a PR firm paid to spew BS on behalf of certain billionaires who have an extreme vested interest in an anti-science agenda and they are actually working under several different names on this and other science and news websites. You'll find the exact same wording of their initial asinine comments, under different names, on dozens upon dozens of news sites around the web.

Every so often this gets exposed and that particular moniker gets kicked off the sites and just shifts to a new name.

Thus, not stupid nor ignorant, deceitful is the probably the best term.

Anyone who knowingly engages in such deceit is either grossly ignorant of the facts or stupidly ignores them.

Here nutpecker supplies us with a link to NON scientist watts' blog, where he touts winter weather as proof that there is no AGW.

Of course he does. That's what he(watts) AND nutpecker are paid to do.

Note that none of these snowfalls are unprecedented, geographically, and very few represent accumulations that depart significantly from previous records.

Ditto for temperatures. Note, also, that this "snow cover" will be very short-lived, as it is the result of highly unstable airmasses that are caused -and were predicted to occur- by AGW.

Also Note that it is WINTER, so we expect to see snow. However, if you keep track of the extent and volume of the snow(perhaps via NSIDC) you can expect to see -as I already stated- very little persistence in either accumulation or extent.

It doesn't snow if the air is real cold. Cold air just can't hold enough moisture.

Poor, Ignorant ParkerTard.

Tell that to the Canadians.

Even the UN is admitting that temps have not changed in 17 years.

You warmists are just like Nero fiddling while the western economy burns. Useless green projects waste billions of dollars which are paid for by government deficit spending. The politically connected get richer while the middle class dwindles.

Good paying jobs are driven out of western economies by your progressive hatred of industry.

Maximum temps do not tell the whole story. You have to tie them to minima as well. ie to gain an average you add max to min and divide by 2. This paper provides evidence of the raising of minima over highest ground...http://dvfu.ru/me...5993.pdf

"In this paper we find evidence for appreciable differences in mean temperature changes with elevation during the last several decades of instrumental records. The signal appears to be moreclosely related to increases in daily minimum temperature than changes in the daily maximum. The changes in surface temperature vary spatially, with Europe, and parts of Asia displaying the strongest high altitude warming"

LOL. A paper from 1997, using data which is years to decades older (mostly from before AGW was supposed to have an effect), is the best you could do? Really?

And isn't it interesting, your reference uses predominately low peaks? What is it you don't you understand about "most extreme climate regions?"

... using data ... is the best you could do? Really? And isn't it interesting, your reference uses predominately low peaks? What is it you don't you understand about "most extreme climate regions?"

I thought you claimed warming stopped 17 years ago? .... 1996 then, a year before this study and many of the data go up to at least 1990. Heights are broken down, so your comment about low peaks is specious. How high do you want to go BTW? because on a peak with a permanent glacier you couldn't safely place instruments and the extreme weather would make them u/s for large spells. The sensor on Caingorm Scotland has to emerge from its housing, take readings, then retract back away again and is heated to protect against rime-ice which can build up copiously on a peak often in sub-zero cloud. This at a dizzying altitude of 1245m/4084ft.

My point about Cairngorm was precisely that it is "a mere hill" in global terms ( my English irony passed you by ) - but yet it is not easy to maintain a continuous temp record, and requires expensive equipment to do so.

The link that you give has interesting findings, but as you say re my post - it is regional. Also no mention there of how the data was obtained.

Nice part of the world - visited once ( Vail/Breckenridge ) for skiing trip.

For those that believe that the earth is warming. I have found the cause. The cause is all the windmills that have been built. You need to chart the number of windmill in operation. Over the last 100 years there has been a significant increase in windmills AND and increase in temperature, weather change, climate change, et al.

Windmills and climate change are related. The more windmills we have, the more climate change we have. The science is proved.

You warmists are just like Nero fiddling while the western economy burns. Useless green projects waste billions of dollars which are paid for by government deficit spending. The politically connected get richer while the middle class dwindles.

Good paying jobs are driven out of western economies by your progressive hatred of industry.

You denialists are like Nero fiddling while the world burns, with your idolized industries feeding the fire and fanning the flames.

Anyone who denies that Wind Mills are the cause of climate change are deniers who are denying the truth because they are in bed with Al Gore. Charts don't lie. Ever since Wind Mills have been increasing, according to the UN's own charts, climate change has been increasing.

VD how much money are you making from Wind Mills? How much hush money is Al Gore paying you? Follow the money!

Anyone who denies that Wind Mills are the cause of climate change are deniers who are denying the truth because they are in bed with Al Gore. Charts don't lie. Ever since Wind Mills have been increasing, according to the UN's own charts, climate change has been increasing.

VD how much money are you making from Wind Mills? How much hush money is Al Gore paying you? Follow the money!

Yes, it doesn't snow the air temperature is real cold. The air just doesn't hold enough moisture for it to occur. "annual snowfall on the Antarctic polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain." - ParkerTard I bow to your genius.

5cm of rain = 50cm of snow. A foot and half is not a trace amount. And -89C is pretty cold. But not too cold to snow. It is never too cold to snow. It can be too dry to snow. But not too cold.

5cm is around 2 inches. Now in a western European type climate 25 inches annual rainfall is a typical amount. 5cm is of course a bit of an average - Vostok, the Russian base in the interior gets 0.18ins of ( rain equivalent ) per year. Air at 30C holds 27.7 g/kg of WV. At -30C, 0.3 g/kg or 92 times more can be held by the warmer air. Air at -80C indeed holds nil/negligible WV. Use this calculator to confirm.... http://www.easyca...atio.php

You will have to forgive me Sandy if I seem confused. So you are claiming that the Greenland ice pack could have never formed since if it is a few degrees too warm it snows but everything melts in the summer. If it is a few degrees too cold it never snows enough to form the glaciers. After all, the warmists are only saying that we have warmed a few tenths of a degree by now.

So you are claiming that the Greenland ice pack could have never formed since if it is a few degrees too warm it snows but everything melts in the summer. If it is a few degrees too cold it never snows enough to form the glaciers.

"And just days ago, yet another German meteorology site questioned global warming in a piece titled: "Global Warming Stagnates – Guessing The Causes". The report begins:

Since 1998 the global mean temperature has not risen significantly. While the global temperature rose by about 0.5°C from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, it has stagnated for the last 15 years, though at a high level. [...] The stagnation surprised a lot of experts, who are now searching for possible causes for this development.""

The temps went up only .5 degrees since the 70s. They are using one of the coldest decades as a starting point. It was so cold, in fact, they were predicting a new ice age during that decade. This is the only "science" that changes daily with the weather.

"And just days ago, yet another German meteorology site questioned global warming in a piece titled: "Global Warming Stagnates – Guessing The Causes". The report begins:

Since 1998 the global mean temperature has not risen significantly. While the global temperature rose by about 0.5°C from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, it has stagnated for the last 15 years, though at a high level. [...] The stagnation surprised a lot of experts, who are now searching for possible causes for this development.""

The temps went up only .5 degrees since the 70s. They are using one of the coldest decades as a starting point. It was so cold, in fact, they were predicting a new ice age during that decade. This is the only "science" that changes daily with the weather.

However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.

The fact that air holds less and less WV as it cools does not of course mean that ( in all circumstances ) it cannot snow because your thermometer at ground level is reading -80C ( for eg ). It takes depth of cloud to produce precipitation. Even in the Antarctic interior a temperature that low at the surface would have a temperature inversion in the atmosphere above it. Less cold/moist air very often ascends above cold air and it snows down THROUGH the very coldest air at the surface. We cannot have in the real world a demonstration that "it is too cold to snow".

Top Ten Reasons CO2 is NOT Responsible for Environmental Change, from a pro-AGW-er:

10. Political reason, even if CO2 was the cause then there are so many variables effects it would be hard to lock down. It is good and ambivalent debate fodder.9. CO2 has no effect during the daylight hours. Unlike water, CFCs, and many other GH gasses, CO2 absorbance will be saturated, once saturated the net effect is for thermal energy to pass through it, as will occur in what is the overwhelming radiation bath that is daytime.8. CO2 releases absorbed energy 2 ways. By re-emission in the same wavelength or by collision. In both cases it is overwhelmed by water's broad absorption bands, higher air percentage (even in the driest desert there is far more water than CO2), it is a one way path: Once absorbed by water it will more likely be re-emitted as lower energy photons or with less angular momentum, both due to H2O asymmetry.

7. The change in the mean free path of CO2 interactions. The mean free path of pre-industrial CO2 is 0.000187 m, and is currently 0.000154 m. This is a 20% increase. If we use an exponential model for insulation capability, this means the Earth should retain 8x more heat. Or 2x, when put in proportion with H2O. If anyone can show a decline in the night-time cooling of the Earth, this will be the proof that puts CO2 back in the running. Actually, an elegant way of quantifying it.6. If we don't use an exponential model, and assume that CO2 is working all the time, then it will work at nearly 100% efficiency and be just as effective at 10% of current concentrations, furthermore, not become more effective until significant fractions are in the upper atmosphere, at least, but more than 10x more needed to not significant effect. (Note this is the other extreme of the above argument, CO2 fails both ways!

5. If the effect we are witnessing is a greenhouse effect, we would see heat retention, yes, but we would also see climate stabilization, not wilder weather.4. No one has made any good correlations or intuitive relations, such as this % increase is equivalent to turning up the Sun 0.X%.3. Water is a much more powerful GH gas. They don't give it a GWP number, for the reason if they did the debate would be over. Oh wait, they say because "H2O is extremely short lived and quickly stabilizes in the atmosphere, largely as a product of global temperature." What they seem to gloss over is it is always about 100x more prevalent than CO2, is a broader and more powerful absorber, and it's short lived-ness transfers colossal amounts of heat. CO2 has two specific peaks 80% at 4.2 and 15 microns. I'd give water about an 80GWP, minimum.2. Alright, so I really can't think of 10, I'm surprised anyone's still reading anyway, you are really great and appreciated! Thanks!

And... by the power ested in me by the principle of parsimony, CO2 is not necessarry...1. A simple little intuitive model has predicted, even retroactively, climate change and it does not use CO2 as a variable. http://www.facebo...4557455/

If this was Jeopardy I would say, "And how does CO2 evaporate more H2O from the oceans creating a seriously dangerous global warming feedback mechanism that will kill the planet for millions of years."

Your correct Alchemist, It will be the water vapor that kills us. CO2 lingers for 1000s of years and will continually heat the oceans creating more water vapor, creating more green-house heating. Those are all in the computer models you love to hate by the way. We already thought about it.

@Howhot, excellent observation, and I completely agree, barring a part of the conclusion: I say if we could model, say, an Earth without water, it would be much colder. In other words, the Earth's GH gas of choice is H2O.It really is amazing, it evaporates, taking huge amounts of heat with it, insulates as a GH gas, then is able to deposite that heat far away from where it evaporated.

The problem with your assertion that H20 is driving GW is like the myth of CO2 following and not ( ever ) leading. The thing about water in the atmosphere is that in totality it is stable, it being added/removed from the air in cycles of days. Yes, there are great variations spacially and temporally but taken as a whole there is little change. Any increases in H20 in the atmosphere are as a result of temperature increases, not the other way about. Where CO2 differs is that when added it stays a damn sight longer and there is a continuing incremental increase in it's concentration. Basic physics then take over with an ( added ) GHG response. I know you think you know more than the worlds scientists - but it is my contention you don't.Also, CO2 DOES work as a GHG during the day, just as your greenhouse in the garden does. The atmosphere is thick ( differing balances of radiation transmission vertically ) and it absorbs/re-emits IR from the earths surface 100% of the time.

@runrig, you have excellent points-I'll have to fully consider them...In the meanwhile, I am not saying that H2O is driving GW. (My asserion is much more boring then that-but let's not dilute this vignette). I am saying that GH gasses are the baseline. Without them we'd be colder.One facet I was also considering-though again, I don't want to ruin this opic, goes something like this: Assume H2O and CO2 are both GH gasses. Now, do we have an addition or dilution effect when we add CO2? (Dilution in this case may mean intensify, counter-intuitively-like "diluting" H3PO4 with HCL.) Interesting our minds were running down similar if complementary channels.Cordially now: I do know quite abit more than many world scientists, but then the reverse is also true. It all depends on topic, really, and I have been passionate about AGW for 30 years now. It may not make me an expert, but lets face it, experts have said the dumbest things...Most importantly-thanks.

Here's a tidbit for the pirana's: I realized I have my exponential pointing the wrong way. I am not sure it really changes the arguement, and a case can be made for the atmospheric mixture having a characteristic unbounded "k e^(x/X)" for small amounts and bleeding into the "k ln (x/X)" for larger amounts.

@Howhot-No H2O, but unfortunately plenty of CO2. As I understand it, since CO2 dominates Venus' atmosphere, it both keeps it hot, and keeps it cool. Since CO2 is at the top of the Venitian atmosphere it blocks mucho heat. However, as you go lower it insulates as they taught us in school.I tend to stay away from Venus analogies, they are easily "double-edged swords," and I don't have the expertise to run them down.

Alchemist is either incredibly forgetful or steadfastly ignoring of those facts which do not well comport with his desired conclusions.

To repeat, while the effects of H2O and CO2 are cumulative, H2O levels are not rising, while those of anthropogenic CO2 are doing so rapidly, such that H2O is NOT increasing radiative forcing, but CO2 levels ARE.

@runrig, first we need to base-line, do we both agree that, even in the driest desert there is always ~5% water in the atmosphere? This means 100% persistence plus anything over that 5% everywhere else.Also, I know CO2 is absorbing and emitting during the day, what I am saying is that the "oven" of daytime radiation (sunlight becoming thermal) is that it is virtually always in its excited state, allowing its first absorption radiaition to pass. (Ignoring H2O for simplicity in this arguement.)Do you see these as good assumptions?

How very hilarious, considering that ubavontuba can't even decide which type of skeptic he is, trend, attribution or impact. In a single breath he switches back and forth between the three, thus dispaying his intellectual fraud.

... and I am not going to explain it to you any longer, YOU can research why what you're saying is incorrect.

@runrig, first we need to base-line, do we both agree that, even in the driest desert there is always ~5% water in the atmosphere? This means 100% persistence plus anything over that 5% everywhere else.Also, I know CO2 is absorbing and emitting during the day, what I am saying is that the "oven" of daytime radiation (sunlight becoming thermal) is that it is virtually always in its excited state, allowing its first absorption radiaition to pass. (Ignoring H2O for simplicity in this arguement.)Do you see these as good assumptions?

To @the Alchemist; We already thought about it. All of your wining looser, non-science, politically based tea party idea BS is not going to change the FACTS! People consuming fossil fuels is causing global warming, and not just a little global warming your type believes. Hell no, it a BIG and fast global warming like nothing this world has seen in all of Earths history! Prove me wrong.

However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.

Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.

However, as the air is cooled, it holds less water vapor and there is less that can precipitate. Don't get me wrong, the denialists that point at snow as debunking global warming are incorrect. However, the technical issue of it being too cold to snow is a different issue. Sigh. I hate to give them any fodder because they will run with this for the wrong reason. This does not debunk AGW in any way.

Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.

Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.

ROTFLMAO.

Frost is NOT PRECIPITATION. Frost does NOT FALL.

Do your own research to find out what frost is.

LOL. Sure, maybe it's not the technical definition of frost, but it's closely related. And I think, more aptly describes the process over terms like "snow" and "frozen drizzle," which bring to mind an association with clouds and heavy fog. In Antartica, this this very light snow can happen on relatively clear days.

"The low temperatures mean that little or no water vapour is held in the air, instead it freezes and falls out, or builds up on surfaces as frost."

Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.

BAW HAWHAW HAW HAW HAW!! No bloody wonder you have no idea how climate works!!!

This appears to be your problem.

From the Observers' Handbook, published by HMSO, ISBN 0 11 400329 7

Page 140:

"If the observer knows that the deposit in the gauge results from dew, wet fog, hoar frost or rime, an appropriate note should be made in the remarks column of register, (for example tr(w)). (The entry tr(w) is not made just because the observer sees dew on the grass). Such deposits are sometimes more than 0.05mm, in which case the measured amount is recorded".

In other words, frost is included in the precipitation total.

Even NASA agrees:

"However, this precipitation most likely takes the form of frost, rather than rain or snow."

Much of the precipitation falling on the Antarctic continent is frost. Water vapor simply freezes out of the air.

ROTFLMAO.

Frost is NOT PRECIPITATION. Frost does NOT FALL.

Do your own research to find out what frost is.

LOL. Sure, maybe it's not the technical definition of frost, but it's closely related. And I think, more aptly describes the process over terms like "snow" and "frozen drizzle," which bring to mind an association with clouds and heavy fog. In Antartica, this this very light snow can happen on relatively clear days.

"The low temperatures mean that little or no water vapour is held in the air, instead it freezes and falls out, or builds up on surfaces as frost."

If you can't get the simple stuff right there's no reason that you can do better with anything greater.

"If the observer knows that the deposit in the gauge results from dew, wet fog, hoar frost or rime, an appropriate note should be made in the remarks column of register, (for example tr(w)). (The entry tr(w) is not made just because the observer sees dew on the grass). Such deposits are sometimes more than 0.05mm, in which case the measured amount is recorded".

"In meteorology, precipitation (also known as one of the classes of hydrometeors, which are atmospheric water phenomena) is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."

To @the Alchemist; We already thought about it....it a BIG and fast global warming like nothing this world has seen in all of Earths history! Prove me wrong.

Darn it! Howhot, Darn it! I CAN'T prove you wrong, mankind IS adding heat energy to the planet Earth with detrimental effects! WE are absolutely right. We simply disagree on the cause. You say it's CO2, I say its the heat from the fossil fuels. I think CO2 is a wild goose chase confusing the issue, allowing no action to be taken from dissention, and eventual disproof.Aside: I am working on modelling the Earth without H2O in the atmosphere. I know the temperature will drop, but I haven't found the equilib. temp yet. Working.Every day the US alone produces enough heat to melt 100m3 of ice. Put another way enough to raise 10,000 m3... 14 C. YOU know from your models, that heat is not significantly radiated... it's absorbed. The world burns about 10x that!

Of that, the H2O quickly condenses, and a significant portion of the energy, which is of the shorter IR wavelengths or in the visible light range, is either converted to kinetic energy or emitted as visible light. The only output with a relatively long lifespan is CO2.

Of that, the H2O quickly condenses, and a significant portion of the energy, which is of the shorter IR wavelengths or in the visible light range, is either converted to kinetic energy or emitted as visible light. The only output with a relatively long lifespan is CO2.

A FEB PGA golf tournament in Tucson was delayed by snow this year.It was snowing last night in northern AL."The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles."

A FEB PGA golf tournament in Tucson was delayed by snow this year.It was snowing last night in northern AL."The highest mountain peaks in the northwestern Himalayas, the Andes and the Yukon region will also receive greater amounts of snowfall after carbon dioxide doubles."

Sounds like the start of an ice age as glaciers build.

It has also happened that Florida --further south, still-- has received snowfall during the winter.

"In meteorology, precipitation (also known as one of the classes of hydrometeors, which are atmospheric water phenomena) is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapour that falls under gravity."

Frost does NOT "Fall under gravity.".

So where do you think the frost's moisture content comes from? Does it just appear, as if by magic?

precipitation [prɪˌsɪpɪˈteɪʃən]n1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) Meteorola. rain, snow, sleet, dew, etc., formed by condensation of water vapour in the atmosphereb. the deposition of these on the earth's surfacec. the amount precipitated

LOL. "the distinguish" LOL. You can't even use proper grammar, and you speak to me of definitions?

You are too stupid to even know the difference between a typographical error and one of grammar.

LOL. Maybe you're trying to say, NASA can't make this distinction, as well?

The fact that you understood my meaning suffices to make your complaint moot.

What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.

And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again.

Idiot. You can't even recognize your own ass when it's being passed about.

You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.

Like I said, grow up.

Grow up.

Advice you you would do well to heed.

Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?

Science isn't a popularity contest.

It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.

You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.

LOL. "the distinguish" LOL. You can't even use proper grammar, and you speak to me of definitions?

You are too stupid to even know the difference between a typographical error and one of grammar.

A typographical error is a misspelling. This was clearly a grammatical error.

LOL. Maybe you're trying to say, NASA can't make this distinction, as well?

The fact that you understood my meaning suffices to make your complaint moot.

Not at all. As you too clearly understood my meaning regarding frost and precipitation.

What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.

The why of it is irrelevant.

And, yes, you just had your ass handed to you, again.

Idiot. You can't even recognize your own ass when it's being passed about.

You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.

Like I said, grow up.

Grow up.

Advice you you would do well to heed.

Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?

Science isn't a popularity contest.

It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.

You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.

What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.

The why of it is irrelevant.

Never said that it was irrelevant, but that it was immaterial. You're too stupid to even understand the difference.

As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be you

You keep getting more and more stupid by the moment. That's what happens when a charlatan is cornered.

So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures?

Yet another stupid sophist's trick, misrepresentation. It's plain for all to see that I said that past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones. Pretending that others cannot see what I said just makes you look more and more foolish.

You're just pissed that so many find your stupid deception to be so very transparent. Deal with it.

Like I said, grow up.

Grow up.

Advice you you would do well to heed.

Aren't you the moron playing the pissy little popularity games?

Science isn't a popularity contest.

It's also not whatever idiots like you and your ilk take it to be.

You mean you don't believe it's the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement? Instead, you think it's just a popularity contest? LOL.

I can see it now...

"Here she is... Miss Science 2013! LOL!"

My, my, aren't you the clever idiot.

That's an oxymoron. You can't both be clever and an idiot, at the same time.

That you feel science is a popularity contest though, certainly implies the latter descriptor, for you.

What NASA does is immaterial. That frost may be counted as "precipitation" owes to the simple fact that it is not easily physically separated from the true preciptation gathered by collection devices. I.e., it's an artifact of accounting.

The why of it is irrelevant.

Never said that it was irrelevant, but that it was immaterial. You're too stupid to even understand the difference.

Idiot. First, immaterial and irrelevant are synonyms.

im·ma·te·ri·al (m-tîr-l)adj.1. Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.

Second, I didn't say you said it was irrelevant. I said your claim that it's an "artifact of accounting" is irrelevant to the definition being discussed. Regardless of why the definition as used by me exists, it exists.

As you're the one trying to hide the current trend in a larger trend, the fraud appears to be you

You keep getting more and more stupid by the moment. That's what happens when a charlatan is cornered.

So that explains your behavior.

So you're saying AGW is not relevant to the past or current temperatures?

Yet another stupid sophist's trick, misrepresentation. It's plain for all to see that I said that past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones. Pretending that others cannot see what I said just makes you look more and more foolish.

"past temperatures are irrelevant to present and future ones." Really?

So, if the past temperatures are irrelevant, how can you show there's been any warming? LOL.

I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.

Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.

I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.

Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.

I'll downrank you my very own self, boohoobooby. No puppets of any type required.

Thanks for providing me with precisely that pleasure, over and over --and over again-- in this very thread with your stupidiot insistence upon posting specious, superfluous, pseudoscientific denialist twaddle.

LOL. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.

That's why you should forego looking at your own, as there isn't any left.